So called impact assessment
If your blood pressure can take it it’s available to download from the bottom of this page.
Scroll down to page 83 and you’ll quickly notice that they list NOTHING under Other key non-monetised costs by ‘main affected groups’. Right, so the damage done to our children, the stress, the loss of our privacy and civil rights and the massive waste of our time aren’t worth mentioning then?
Registration will come into effect from April 2011
{shudders}
LAs estimate that 8% of ‘home educated’ children are receiving no education at all and 20% are not receiving a suitable education (including the 8%)
IF you believe these numbers, which I don’t, that’s between 8 and 20% of known cases where the LAs are FAILING to use existing powers.
Evidence Base [sic] (for summary sheets)
Local authorities currently have records which identify home educated children when they are deregistered from a school. Through this 20,000 children are already known to LAs. Modelling suggests that 80% of all those who begin elective home education become known to the LA when the parents deregister the child from school or when they voluntarily approach the local authority. However, there could be as many as 40,000 and there is a very remote possibility that the number could be as high as 80,000 (or 1% of the total school age children in England). The current system, or the post Contact-Point arrangements, will not identify these children efficiently.
Hang on, did they just ADMIT in print that Contact-Point isn’t going to be able to identify all EHE children? It is in fact not going to work? They did just admit that! Ha! All the negatives and they know it’s not even going to work!
LAs tell us that they estimate that 8% of home educated children known to them receive no education and that overall, 20% of home educated children already known to them do not receive a suitable education. They have no idea about the standard of education experienced by home educated children not known to them.
In other words, we don’t know what we don’t know but we’re going to assume the worst anyway and demand draconian legislation on that basis.
First year of registration
Children in the first year will all receive 2 * 4 hour meetings with LA officer (includes planning, travel time etc)50% of children in the first year will receive an additional 2 * 4 hour sessions. This is an estimate about what % of initial assessments will require further action. There is little data, because the scheme has not yet been implemented, but we are as confident as we can be that this is a high end estimation.
I think the phrase I’m looking for here is OVER MY DEAD BODY.
Monitoring visits
All children receive 1 x 8 hour visit at the end of the year. 50% will receive an additional 1 x 8 hour visit.
EIGHT HOURS?! OK, even assuming they knock off a couple for “planning, travel time etc” that’s a outrageous!
Opportunity costs to parents
The opportunity costs to parents of meeting with local authority officers have been factored into the costing. However, we have not included a cost for the preparation of an education plan on the basis that:
• Even though parents and carers may not give it that name, it is a core part of planning ahead to deliver home education for their children. Any change will not represent additional time invested, but instead mean that parents and carers are using some of the time they devote to home education differently.
• Curricula are available for immediate download from QCA and DCSF websites, and are adequate for the purposes of education planning.
WRONG. They really don’t get it do they? I don’t have an education plan by any name and I don’t want or need one!
The consequences of receiving a poor or inadequate education in later life are that the young people denied an adequate education are unlikely to achieve recognised qualifications and more likely to turn to crime or substance abuse.
And their evidence for EHE children turning to drugs or crime is … oh, I forgot, they don’t HAVE any! They then go on about how not having 5 good GCSEs destroys your life. I seriously don’t want people this STUPID having anything to do with my child’s education!
Jill Said on November 21st, 2009 at 12:01 pm quote
I echo everything you have said. I feel sick reading the document. They don’t care about our children they just want worker ants marching to the governments beat.
What about the children at school who are receiving a poor education? All the druggies and drunks around here are school educated, and most of them end up on the dole. My children are having a better start in life and have big plans for when they grow up. They are happy and well adjusted, the government want to beat that out of them
Bastards the lot of them!
Merry Said on November 21st, 2009 at 12:11 pm quote
It is beyond dreadful. In fact, they even know it is. They are deliberately bullying us as spitefully as possible in the hope we will then accept a watered down version at some point.
I don’t think so. I haven’t seen one thing here that wouldn’t be detrimental to the life my children have. Not one crumb of benefit anywhere.
Sam Said on November 21st, 2009 at 12:12 pm quote
Excellent post, even though I feel sick.
8 hours - I suppose that allows enough time for a couple of written papers? (poor joke, I hope)
Lynn Said on November 21st, 2009 at 1:41 pm quote
Yes I read the contactpoint bit and thought WTF! How do they manage to figure that out exactly!
Considering that a lot of private schools do iGCSEs, I wonder how many MPs, judges etc. have got 5 good GSCEs?
Funny how they’ve refused to put a figure on SAOs. 0.05% ha ha ha! Especially when they are planning to issue one as a matter of course if they find an ‘unregistered’ HEer.
Baz Said on November 21st, 2009 at 4:46 pm quote
“The consequences of receiving a poor or inadequate education in later life are that the young people denied an adequate education are unlikely to achieve recognised qualifications and more likely to turn to crime or substance abuse.”
A good chunk of children in my school had managed that before they’d got anywhere near GCSEs.